Let's clear any confusion: these 3 are the best female artists ever. prove me wrong

let's clear any confusion: these 3 are the best female artists ever. prove me wrong.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=L8JVSYj-qV8
twitter.com/AnonBabble

How come the three best female artists only got recognized or any critical acclaim for their sex appeal?

wow, Joni Mitchell looks different on the bottom there.

wrong, its actually Grouper

Kate Bush
Tine Weymouth
Kim Deal

>grimes
>having sex appeal
lmao
i like you
>three

Nah they are actually among the worst. Not even joking. They aren't making dense works full of intricate melody, harmony, and dynamics like Sofia Gubaidulina nor are they experimental on the level of someone like Pauline Oliveros. Instead they chose the easiest musical medium to work with, pop music. That in of itself automatically disqualifies them from best female artists ever contention. Don't get me wrong, I love me some pop music; sometimes you just need something light and fun to counteract the highly engaging or highly experimental works out there. But you what makes these three among the worst female artists? That instead of making fun, catchy pop ditties, instead of making bangers, they make pretentious garbage that tries to be "artistic" without any of the real intricacy and depth that comes with being considered a truly respectable female artist within serious music. It's literally the worst of all worlds. Not as much a catchy banger as pop music generally is. Nowhere near the complexity and depth of art music. Faux experimentation passed of as being real experimentation of musical concepts. Only the most pretentious fucks can enjoy pretentious all image no music garbage like these three.

>three
ok

Grouper
Kate Bush
Hope Sandoval

this

Borderline retarded
I love these three and I can at least see arguments for bjork and grimes trying too hard, but Kate? Really?

Yes. Don't give me that "but muh art pop" garbage, either. Simplistic music trying too hard to do muh progressive faux complexity instead of making fun bangers.

That's the point, I can't think of anything in Kates catalog that's trying too hard.

most of Kate's music is pretty fun imo. especially the first four albums. half of hounds is very catchy pop music that doesn't try too hard and you could make an argument for sensual world as well

What? She's literally pop's equivalent of the pretentious 70s tripe with it's "classical" influence while offering nothing to that level. As a banger, the synthpop and electropop of the 80s is far better at doing that than her crap.

>banger

>listening to goddamn pop music for anything laid back or cerebrally stimulating

Nah nah nah nah

What

>pig bush
>bJOKE
sorry sweetie, no. and i don't know who and/or what the third person(?) in the image is.

>gib bangers

where is joanna newsom

> and i don't know who and/or what the third person(?) in the image is.

HAHAHA! NIGGA YOU NEW?

I just don't think there's a problem with pop musicians incorporating wackiness into their music. She has catchy melodies, she has interesting and perhaps even thoughtful lyrics, but she adds a layer of personality to her music which, sure doesn't always work out, but that's admirable in of itself. I don't see her as trying to aesthetically compete with experimental artists that do experimental music better, because Kate and experimental artists work in different contexts. Kate tries to make wackiness catchy which pushes boundaries of pop music, experimental artists try to push boundaries of music as a whole. She has her unique brand of pop, and this unique brand happens to resonate well with some people. The fact that her music resonates with people at all I think is pretty nice.
Of course this does allow for certain people who don't really have a conception of experimental music to potentially tote Kate as the greatest thing since sliced bread (as in the unfortunate case with Radiohead), but ya know I just generally try to avoid discussions of Kate on here anyway.

I'm sure a similar case can be made for Bjork and Grimes too, but I'm not particularly familiar with either of them.

pic related in many ways

Bjork is on another level altogether. She's one of the most important musicians of all time.
Kate Bush is kind of hot but her music is complete garbage and she's also a spork musician.
Grimes' music is even worse but she's kind of cool as a person.

are there any grimes nudes? asking for a friend

...

Don't fuck with Kate, fellow Bjorkfriend.

Don't care how kate ranks among other musicians, she gives me all the feels

Bangers are great, fuck you pleb.
But it's not really "pushing boundaries" in any meaningful way because it's more an attempt to bring about a temporarily fresh surface aesthetic rather than up the banger. I used to feel this way about a lot of the more so called "unique" music posted here, but at the end of the day it's a very shallow way to approach music and the very many things it can offer.

>up the banger

By "pushing boundaries" I mean imbuing her own personality into pop. Any artist that puts their own personality into their music re-expresses facets of the genre in their own way, so whether by a little or a lot, they push boundaries of their genre. It's true that someone out there probably has done more interesting things with the pop genre than Kate, and I would be interested in eventually getting around to listening to this person's music, but I don't forsee that devaluing my opinion of Kate, rather I think I would probably just enjoy listening to that person more (should I end up liking that person's music anyway).

I would agree that Kate's music doesn't really fit your taste for more music with some compositional depth and complexity, but I do think that certain songs by her do illustrate thoughtful craft where lyrics, melody, "surface aesthetic" all work together to create a cohesive whole (ex: The Dreaming (the song), Hounds of Love (the song), Get Out of My House, Leave it Open, The Ninth Wave suite in particular could be improved on but I find extremely fascinating nonetheless). I agree that totally relying on "surface aesthetic" is not a way to make great music, but I also think that Kate has demonstrated an ability to write pop music in a way that incorporates wacky sounds and weird vocal effects and whatnot to make music that works cohesively, at least a couple of times if not more. Beyond making catchy music, that's what I like about her anyway.

boring music

>grimes
>having sex appeal
>lmao
so, it's her great music. glad that we settled this.

What about me guys?

>By "pushing boundaries" I mean imbuing her own personality into pop. Any artist that puts their own personality into their music re-expresses facets of the genre in their own way, so whether by a little or a lot, they push boundaries of their genre.
This interpretation of "expression" is subjective as is all interpretations of the concept of "expression" in music.
I actually like that they are all different pics of you rather than the same one each time.

stupid post
> They aren't making dense works full of intricate melody, harmony, and dynamics like Sofia Gubaidulina nor are they experimental on the level of someone like Pauline Oliveros.
i get it, you enjoy shitty "experimental" music with no decent songwriting. stay hipster.

I can't, I get in trouble

>Nowhere near the complexity and depth of art music.
>he believes this empty simplistic shit youtube.com/watch?v=L8JVSYj-qV8 is complex

>best female artists
>no Debbie Harry

she's not here. her awful voice and her dull harpy music is nothing to celebrate.

>experimental artists try to push boundaries of music as a whole
...by making shitty and unpleasant music. music is not a competition, who does the wackiest stuff. only hipster idiots fell for experimental = best music meme.

>Bjork is on another level altogether. She's one of the most important musicians of all time.
was. her last 4 albums are tuneless shit.
>Kate Bush is kind of hot but her music is complete garbage and she's also a spork musician.
waifufag detected
>Grimes' music is even worse but she's kind of cool as a person.
it's worst to you because you're a pleb.

You all honestly suck if you think the best female artists are the ones making pop drivel

t. youruba

>This interpretation of "expression" is subjective as is all interpretations of the concept of "expression" in music.
No disagreements there. Whether you think an artist has personality or doesn't, or pushes boundaries of whatever genre or whatever music or doesn't (and even how an artist might do that), or is any good at all is all up to personal opinion. I'm not forcing you to like Kate, nor do I think you're a lesser person for hating music that I like.

she's a mere singer/songwriter. no instruments, no production.

singing and songwriting still makes someone an artist ya dumb pinhead

>hating the whole pop genre
you suck, hipster

I don't think that any reasonable experimental artist thinks that music is a competition. John Zorn to give an example has stated that he does his free improv stuff because he likes how each listener comes out with a unique interpretation of what he just played.

but not comparable with singers/songwriters/producers like bjork/kate bush/grimes. it's a different league, nitwit.

But I do like decent songwriting. There's a lot of work put into the beautiful melodies of someone like Sofia Gubaidulina who can write a large variety of them and make them fit perfectly together despite being so different. What people like Bush, Bjork and Grimes do is simplistic and for hipsters, pseudointellectuals, etc.
There's more progression in the first part of In Tempus Prasens alone than entire albums written by the three losers in question itt. She's getting more out of one violin alone than these losers are capable of getting from a enormous variety of different timbres.

nina simone, björk, laurie anderson. also maybe nico and kim gordon.

I just hate this kind of pop
semi-mainstream quasi indie bullshit

the only people who use that as a metric are autists who are trying to give their nobody faves brownie points, and it's worthless in the grand scheme of things when discussing an artist's legacy and impact. no one cares that whitney houston was an executive producer on all her albums starting with her 3rd, and legacy wouldn't be any different if she wasn't. ya ninny

grouper, joni mitchell, fiona apple

This
>Your favorite artist just writes music, mine PLAYS it too, so I win! Haha, nana nana boo boo!

miley cyrus, selena gomez, and yo mama.

Edith Piaf
Celine Dion
Debbie Harry

U rite doe

This is some of the most tryhard shit I've ever read and half of it doesn't even make sense. I'm sorry no one likes ur boring ass art school musicians!

>no one cares that whitney houston was an executive producer on all her albums
Because all that being an EXECUTIVE producer really means is that the person was there for some of the time when the actual work was done. Production credits (especially solo production credits) are EXTREMELY important in the grand scheme of things to a musical artist's legacy and impact, because having them means that ANY sort of effect that music might have on others in the future is directly creditable to that one person.

here is choa proving you wrong once again